Blood and Valor Wargames Rules Review | Storm of Steel Wargaming
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Buy Blood and Valor here:
www.firelockga...
Buy Through the Mud and Blood and Stout Hearts and Iron Troops here:
toofatlardies....
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @stormofsteelwargaming
Storm of Steel official merchandise:
Storm of Steel Hex Logo: www.redbubble....
Storm of Steel Long Logo: www.redbubble....
Give me a one off tip on Ko-fi here: ko-fi.com/stor...
Please support me through Patreon here: / stormofsteelwargaming
There's more gaming content here: www.stormofste...
You can follow Storm of Steel on:
Facebook: / stormofsteelwargaming
Twitter: / soswargaming
instagram: / stormofsteelwargaming
#StormofSteelWargaming #BloodandValor #productreview
Thanks for putting this video up - I was very interested to see how it compared to Blood and Steel, which I have similar issues with. First thing I would say is that I think Firelock Games have a misconception of what a skirmish game is. To them it is a game played on a small table with a few figures, but to a historical wargamer it should be a game that reproduces a typical skirmish of the period. Hence the appearance of anomalies such as gas barrages and the failure to address unit structures. Second thing is I don't think Firelock Games see historical accuracy as a priority. They actually state this in Blood and Steel whereas the confession seems absent in Blood and Valor so you are quite right to criticise the shortcomings of BandV. On the plus side Blood and Steel is a very enjoyable game and it looks like Blood and Valor would be as well as long as you suspend your disbelief. As you say, very much a set of rules designed to lure GW players into historical games. The problem is they never seem to advance onto more serious rulesets from this first step.
No worries, I had made it, so I thought I'd post it. Yeah, I broadly agree with the skirmish misconception. There is very little in this that makes it historical from my POV, it's a thin FWW skin on an otherwise pretty basic game.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the rules makers, I don't own the game and actually prefer Lardie games myself but I have a few opinions based on your analysis
First, I personally don't mind that the game has a freer list building. No rules have every had ever covered every battle in their available list. Historical wargamers play with historical wargamers, I'd be more worried if the list building DOESN'T allow me to create a historically accurate force, that one of us would inevitably research deeply into. It also allows hobbyists to release historically accurate scenarios onto bulletin boards, remember those days?
Since it's in units of 4 riflemen, I think most historically accurate platoon sizes can be formed, give or take 1 guy. Am I worried that a section has 12 instead of 11 guys? I'd err on a smaller number. Training guide organization charts might be perfect when recruiting in the rear, but will definitely be different by the time a trigger is pulled. Foot rot and all that.
The question is: are you, as a historical wargamer, going to enter a historically accurate list to a free for all tournament to be smashed by lists full of SMGs and flamethrowers? Unlikely.
Secondly, regarding the units having stats and D10s. I am actually glad that Australians don't shoot 16.66% better than Turks for instance or whatever the stereotype may be. And Tiralleurs don't fight 16.66% better than the average Poilu. If humans are humans then there is no impact on the game, there is only an impact on presentation. That should not bother people interested in the game, unless they want to pick holes in the presentation. If they present the game to be more welcoming to Games Workshoppy guys, can you blame them?
I think platoon level games are so zoomed in, it is easy to assume that the battle is going on beyond the edges of the playing surface. In that zoomed in area, are everyone in the game from the same platoon? Could three guys be separated from another platoon and just fight together with the other lads? Does that automatically make it not pass the historical grognard test of pure virtue?
I actually feel the same as you about the genericness of the rules, and the gameiness of the bidding, hence why I still don't own the game. CoC + 2014 Christmas Special works for me. Perhaps that is the content creator challenge, can these rules support a historically accurate custom scenario, and be, god forbid, fun? A company has invested money to make a pretty rulebook for WW1.
All fair points and I think I touched on a few of these in the review TBH. It would have been nice to have a couple of pages to show historical platoons rather than just pages and pages of similarly statted lists, even if to just guide people who are new to the period and historical gaming in general. I am not a tournament player, but this is very much geared towards that and as free as people are to play with their toys in whatever way they want, it's not for me. I'm not going to praise something for doing something that I dislike, am I? As for CoC + the 2014 Christmas special, I couldn't agree more (and have a couple of videos on that very subject on the channel).
I chuckled when he said he preferred d6s to d10s for rather pragmatic reasons but took issue with the difference between _possible_ models allowed in an infantry section and what was regulation for the time. I think one of the greatest things going for Blood and Valor is its accessibility and that seems to be underlying cause of the reviewer's issues with the game.
Noticed an error as soon as you opened the book, the map has Egypt labelled as 'English Egypt', should be ''British Egypt'. It's an eternal annoyance that Americans rarely get the England/Britain thing right.
I missed that, but you are correct.
Ironic you mentioned Amiens at the start. I'm currently in the process of writing a short campaign for firelocks "War Stories" ttrpg system where the players will be the crew of a mark v tank in the 5th tank battalion with the Canadian 3rd division.
Excellent review. I am going to a convention this weekend and had thought I might be playing this. I think I will give it a miss now. One thing you said a couple of times was about stat lines being linked to Warhammer. Stat lines or blocks have been around for much longer than Warhammer. They were being used by historical designers like Bruce Quarrie and Tony Bath years ago. I think that is where the GW designers got their ideas was those classic games.
Cheers Andrew, I'm glad you enjoyed the review. Yeah, I know stat lines have been around for a long time, but the majority of wargamers these days would know them from Warhammer and I think this game is appealing to Warhammer gamers rather than Quarrie and Bath gamers...
Useful review of the contents, thanks Alex.👍 We’ve played a game with the rules at the FOGH club and it seemed to work quite well. The Initiative system was a fun mechanic and worked well in giving the player something to think about each turn. We didn’t use the lists but worked our own out, based on actual section organisation in 1917 (i.e. bombers and rifles). We adjusted the stat. lines to give some variety in the two sides (we had an ‘inexperienced’ set of Germans defending). We found it wasn’t great as a multi-player game as you have to wait around for it to be your chance to use the initiative. 2 players per side was ok, but wouldn’t want to add too many more. I think we’ll try it again - but look forward to your other reviews for the period.
Glad you enjoyed it Andy. It sounds like you had fun with it at least.
I just know the odd ball weapons will be will be used in a prefusion unlike their historical use,it will be ive got to have an smg flamethrower and sniper team.nice review thanks.
Yep, it will be a case of cram everything and anything in there.
Nice, balanced and fair review. I like the personal insights and explanations for the evaltuation of rules and stats.
Would also assume that more GW players were addressed here. Weapon choice me reminds of "Battlefield 1", less historical than casual.
Cheers, glad you enjoyed it. Yes, this is very much World Warhammer One.
Great thumbnail - Tell Tiny ‘I see what you did there’
Its all about the thumb
Interesting review Alex. I purchased the rules some time ago read them and have never played them. I was looking for a small skirmish game for WW1 and was hoping these might scratch that itch but they just feel like a set of rules that could be used for any conflict in the era of bolt action rifles. There is nothing in them that gives me the feel of WW1 action other than throwing in some rules for gas etc. The search goes on due to the fact that my interest lies very firmly in 1914.
Cheers Paul, yeah they are very vanilla in my opinion. Nothing really stood out apart from the bidding system, which I think is a bit gamey, TBH. I'd suggest Through the Mud and Blood, but the rifle platoons of 1914 might make games feel a little vanilla, TBH. To me the interesting part of the war is from 1916 onwards.
@@StormofSteelWargaming yeah I've begun to realise that in some ways 1914 presents a lot of problems for gaming. Representing the death throws of older tactical systems at the dawn of a newer type of warfare seems to be quite difficult to get right. I've played a few games of mud & blood set in 1918 and have been great fun with the right feel but moving them back to 1914 as you say feels a little vanilla as I've find you leave out a lot if the things that make the rules such a good game.
@@paulspaintshed3511 1914 is probably better tackled at battalion level or above, I'd say. It might be worth looking at the IABSM variant, Sturmabteilung Vor! as the differences in weapons are not as pronounced between the earlier rifle platoons and later mixed platoons at that level? You'll find Sturmabteilung Vor! in one of the Lardy specials.
@@StormofSteelWargaming cheers mate ill check it out.
@@ShakosAndSprues yeah I keep looking at that but I've never pulled the trigger.
Great review and overview mate. I think that while the Blood and Plunder rules really appeal to me, this doesn't quite as much. Would be interested to hear your thoughts if you manage to get a game in on how well it translates to the table.
Out of curiosity have you tried / looked at the ruleset 1914 by Great Escape Games, its one i keep looking at but don't pull the trigger on.
Cheers Martin. I can see these kind of rules working well for the semi-mythological pirate stuff, but not when you're dealing with hard historical periods. I feel the rules are a little pedestrian for me, but it may be better in an actual tabletop game, so we'll see. I have heard of 1914, but know nothing about it tbh. It may be worth me buying to do another review on though...
@@StormofSteelWargaming i believe 1914 attempts to handle the brigade level manoeuvring at the start of the War to take key towns and positions before it descended into Trench warfare, im not sure how long that lasted as WW1 is by no means my area of expertise 🙂, its designed for smaller scales as far as i can see. I may have to try it out if i see it at a show 👍
@@7thson726 Yeah, I had a look and it is brigade level. There are some preview pages and I did wince that it was only concerned with a very small period of time, with the implication that brigades didn't operate once the trenches had been dug! 🤣🤣 There are a lot of later operations based on brigade level gaming so it might be adaptable to those. I was thinking of doing a video on busting myths of the First World War for wargamers, so there's one straight away... I reckon a copy won't break the bank, so I may fork out for one.
Talking to the people on the Fb group the expansion is where the meat is gonna be, lots of new army lists and pushing it into the interwar period, back of beyond, gunboats etc. which has me really excited for it.
Great detailed review.
Glad it was helpful!
With all the references to Warhammer I’m a little surprised that Warhammer Historical’s The Great War wasn’t mentioned, though that might be easily explained if you haven’t read or played it. I know it only indirectly, through comments on forums - generally favourable - and it’s long OOP and expensive on the used market. I note that one of the designers was Alex Buchel, of Saga fame, which may give a clue as to its approach.
I’ve also seen it stated that the game you declined to mention (Bolt Action, if I’m not mistaken) works better for WW1 - and some parts of the inter-war period - than for WW2. I can certainly see its randomised action sequence working for most periods, and it has the advantage of enabling solo play, which I imagine is precluded by Blood & Valor’s bidding system.
I'm aware of Warhammer historical and the FWW version, but I'm not a fan of either anyway and they are hard to get hold of these days.
Indeed. I’m glad you uploaded this as it helped me get a better grasp of the issues you’d mentioned previously and I can now see that it’s just too bland for my liking, no doubt a decent game but with a rather shallow approach to the conflict. I’ve now bought Through Mud & Blood and ordered a printed copy from Doxdirect. (For maximum thematic effect I’ve gone for black & white).
You review convinced me not to buy this one. I’m looking to pick up a WW1 game that gives an accurate feel of combat that I can play with 2-6 players. I think I am going to go with Through the Mud and the Blood (Too Fat Lardies). Although it’s an older set of rules, it hits far nearer to the mark of authenticity. By the way, have you done any book reviews, or have recommendations, for uniforms of the period? Apart from the use of puttees, the change of French blue & reds with kepis to sky blue coats and trousers with an Adrian helmet, the change of German helmets (cloth covered Pickelhaube to Stahlhelm type ‘15, ‘16, ‘17, and ‘18), and the use of “lobster” plate armor for trench-clearing Stosstruppen, I know very little.
Cheers, glad you liked the video and yes, not one I would recommend. As for books, there are a number of Osprey Books on the the uniforms of the First World War, and Brassey's History of Uniforms Series also covers the FWW for the British and German armies at least. A note the Germans didn't use the plate armour except for trench sentries and even then it was very rare as it wasn't liked being too heavy.
I understand where you are coming from as a historically-based person, but if we make anything a 1:1 Simulation becomes a snooze fest. Think think that this WWI Lite is a good intro game for people who don’t know a ton about the Great War. I think it’s a solid balance of historical influence and gameplay. If we cram too much in it, we now have a 3-4 hour snooze fest of a game. This game plays really well and quickly. End of Empires came out recently and it adds a ton more to the game. I believe this appeals to more the standard Joe Wargamer seeing as historical have a negative reputation for old dudes arguing over millimeters and buttons 🤣 Overall though it’s a fair review and clearly you like more of a simulation than a wargame, which is your prerogative 😁
Putting historical platoon structures in what is supposed to be a historical game doesn't make it a snooze fest, it demonstrates that the authors did at least the most basic historical research when writing the rules. People can play what and how they want, but the rules should at least have some basis in reality or shouldn't pretend that they are historical! Historical wargames should be a way to learn about a conflict, IMO, and this would fail anyone in that task. But each to their own.
No Amiens, but does have Belgians using dogs to pull their dratted machine guns. Monstrous!
I have the game and had the same issue with the very minimal historical reference. Same with their latest book Blood & Steel
Yeah, its a shame and wouldn't take much work to fix
@@StormofSteelWargaming The Blood & Steel book is very sparse with maybe a paragraph for each conflict. I was surprised how thin the book was overall
Could the rules be considered the WG equivalent of the film 1917 in that they bring attention to the period but stray somewhat from reality; are they to the Great War what TFL's 'What a Cowboy' is to the 'Wild West' or 'What a Tanker' is WW2?
Potentially, but TBH, they are just not very good rules anyway.
Love me a good index!
Indexes maketh the rules.
Very interested in the tank, anti-tank and even tank vs tank stuff.
Tanks were a very small part of the First World War, and unfortunately rules generally overegg their use and usefulness.
@@StormofSteelWargaming I know, but i don't want to try and recreate history, just play a game or two.
I think they have been added for game play rather than any historical reference, I think it’s a shame to focus so much on armoured action in WW1, they say they wanted to focus on historical accuracy……
I bought it at the release, but sold it quickly afterwards, it didn't rock my world
Yeah, its pretty pedestrian all told.
So we will not be seeing any games played with these rules.
LOL, doubtful...
@@ShakosAndSprues I'm always a little reticent to record games at the club as I'm aware that people go there for their weekly gaming experience and I don't want to intrude on it, but happy to do it, if you are.